Conveniently, you left out the single biggest mass murderer in history, who happened to be Atheist.

You were saying? You could say that he did it for the "state" instead of atheism. However, considering the state adopted stance on religion was atheism/secularism, his views and the views of the state were one and the same. That is, the religion wasn't to be tolerated. He waffled on those views a few times however.

If you view Muslims killing for a Muslim state as killing in the name of God, then Stalin killing theists as a means to an atheist state is surely killing in the name of atheism.

False. No one has ever killed in the name of atheism.

"Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn’t a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad.

To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened — which is utter nonsense. "

Sorry, I disagree with the author you quoted. Atheism may not be inherently opposed to religion as your author states, but some atheists are. For example, you. You call people that believe in religion idiots. You are opposed to religion and it shows in every post you make on the subject. You yourself are the proof you need to see that atheists that are opposed to religion exist.

That Stalin killed theists to achieve an atheist/secular state, for reasons stemming largely from the ability of religion to organize and motivate, and the potential threat that represents against the state, is in the end, still killing to achieve an atheist state. He was killing for atheism.

One more thing, atheism is not the absence of belief as your author claims. Atheism is the belief that a god does not exist.

Sorry, I disagree with the author you quoted. Killing theists to achieve an atheist/secular state for reasons stemming largely from the ability of religion to organize and motivate, and the potential threat that represents against the state, is in the end, still killing to achieve an atheist state. You are killing for atheism.

One more thing, atheism is not the absence of belief as your author claims. Atheism is the belief that a God does not exist.

Wait what? You're going to accuse me of editing the dictionary part out, when in reality I actually quoted you before you ninja edited it in? Come the fuck on, radix.

Fair enough, I do tend to edit my posts. I apologize for the false accusation, I didn't see your post until after I'd finished editing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougLikesBMW

I am a gnostic atheist thus I believe that 'there is no god'.

I hope you realize that agnostic atheists do not make this claim.

This was my point. That it is a belief. As an gnostic atheist, you believe that the existence of a god can be disproven. I can't. If it can, I challenge you to prove it. It doesn't really matter though, you said it yourself. Belief. That was my point about your anonymous quote. That atheism is a belief.

This was my point. That it is a belief. As an gnostic atheist, you believe that the existence of a god can be disproven. I can't. If it can, I challenge you to prove it. It doesn't really matter though, you said it yourself. Belief. That was my point about your anonymous quote. That atheism is a belief.

It is very difficult / impossible to disprove something. You cannot disprove something for which there is no evidence.

It is very difficult / impossible to disprove something. You cannot disprove something for which there is no evidence.

Agreed. This also means that you are not a gnostic atheist. gnostic means 'knowledge of'. atheism means 'no gods'. gnostic atheism means you have knowledge that there is no god, ergo it can be proven. Your statement above is consistent with agnostic atheism. That's reasonable IMO.

Forgive me, I skimmed it because I'm already familiar with its contents. To be fair, the author of that article gets it wrong as well. If you want the truth, it's that there are different degrees of atheism, as you alluded to earlier.

1. There are atheists who believe emphatically that there is no god, and that this belief can be proven. These are gnostic atheists.

2. There are atheists who simply lack belief in a god, but realize that god cannot be disproven. These would be agnostic atheists.

3. Then there are the agnostics, which simply state that knowledge of the subject is impossible.

I fall into the third category. In your previous post you said you were gnostic atheist, but this post makes it seem as though you fall into the second category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougLikesBMW

Let me reword what I said.

I lack belief in any deities, and I posit that there is no god.

Now, you're confusing the issue again. To posit is to assume as fact. This means you believe there is no god, and puts you back in the realm of gnostic atheism.

Your views are demonstrably inconsistent, even within this post. I'm afraid I still don't understand where you stand, but I'm beginning to suspect you actually are more agnostic than gnostic.

Agreed. This also means that you are not a gnostic atheist. gnostic means 'knowledge of'. atheism means 'no gods'. gnostic atheism means you have knowledge that there is no god, ergo it can be proven. Your statement above is consistent with agnostic atheism. That's reasonable IMO.

Forgive me, I skimmed it because I'm already familiar with its contents. To be fair, the author of that article gets it wrong as well. If you want the truth, it's that there are different degrees of atheism, as you alluded to earlier.

1. There are atheists who believe emphatically that there is no god, and that this belief can be proven. These are gnostic atheists.

2. There are atheists who simply lack belief in a god, but realize that god cannot be disproven. These would be agnostic atheists.

3. Then there are the agnostics, which simply state that knowledge of the subject is impossible.

I fall into the third category. In your previous post you said you were gnostic atheist, but this post makes it seem as though you fall into the second category.

Now, you're confusing the issue again. To posit is to assume as fact. This means you believe there is no god, and puts you back in the realm of gnostic atheism.

Your views are demonstrably inconsistent, even within this post. I'm afraid I still don't understand where you stand, but I'm beginning to suspect you actually are more agnostic than gnostic.

Gnosticism refers to a state of knowledge.

So you have 4 types of people:

Agnostic Atheist:
I lack belief in a theistic god, however I do not know that one does not exist.

Gnostic Atheist:
I lack belief in a theistic god and I know that one does not exist.

Agnostic Theist:
I believe in a theistic god, however I do not have knowledge that this god exists.

Gnostic Theist:
I believe in a theistic god, and I have knowledge that this god exists.

There is no such thing as just being an agnostic. Usually when someone says they are "agnostic" they mean that they are an agnostic atheist.

I guess I used the word posit wrong, sorry about that. I just sort of meant 'I claim'.

just want to throw this idea out there for the athiests to respond to. I'm obviously paraphrasing but this was originally written by some (muslim) philosopher:

So, say you're walking through a forest and find a watch on the ground. You pick it up and open up the back and see the intricate inner workings and mechanisms. Looking at the precision of its manufacture, you would have no doubt in your mind that someone must have made this.

Now, look at the human body, our bodies are incredible machines which defy many problems with human inventions (energy efficiency, etc.) We can regenerate cells, build bones, and repair muscles. The processing capabilities of our minds and the engineering of our cardiovascular system is amazing. So can't it be concluded that there is a greater being who must have created us?

just want to throw this idea out there for the athiests to respond to. I'm obviously paraphrasing but this was originally written by some (muslim) philosopher:

So, say you're walking through a forest and find a watch on the ground. You pick it up and open up the back and see the intricate inner workings and mechanisms. Looking at the precision of its manufacture, you would have no doubt in your mind that someone must have made this.

Now, look at the human body, our bodies are incredible machines which defy many problems with human inventions (energy efficiency, etc.) We can regenerate cells, build bones, and repair muscles. The processing capabilities of our minds and the engineering of our cardiovascular system is amazing. So can't it be concluded that there is a greater being who must have created us?

This is not entirely accurate. I am an agnostic. To add the fifth case, it goes something like this:

Agnostic:

Belief, or lack thereof, is not relevant to the truth value of the of the binary question of the existence of a deity. Said question cannot be answered within the constraints of logic and reason, therefore I will not concern myself with the question.

In other words, I have no lack of belief to speak of, nor do I believe in a deity. If you ask me if there is a god, I'll tell you that I don't know.

just want to throw this idea out there for the athiests to respond to. I'm obviously paraphrasing but this was originally written by some (muslim) philosopher:

So, say you're walking through a forest and find a watch on the ground. You pick it up and open up the back and see the intricate inner workings and mechanisms. Looking at the precision of its manufacture, you would have no doubt in your mind that someone must have made this.

Now, look at the human body, our bodies are incredible machines which defy many problems with human inventions (energy efficiency, etc.) We can regenerate cells, build bones, and repair muscles. The processing capabilities of our minds and the engineering of our cardiovascular system is amazing. So can't it be concluded that there is a greater being who must have created us?

Well, yes and no. You would assume that someone made the watch right away, as watches inorganic. Watches have no other explanation for how it came into being. In this way, the comparison is weighted. Now say you found an animal instead, which is the factor of life included in the comparison. Then you can choose to either chalk it up to a deity and leave it at that, or you can be scientific about it and research its origins. The reason that I ultimately left back religion is that Evolutionism and science has the answers for the time being. Religion to me is just a vestige of a more primitive time for when there were no other answers for how we came into being and I think that we as a society will eventually abandon it.

This is not entirely accurate. I am an agnostic. To add the fifth case, it goes something like this:

Agnostic:

Belief, or lack thereof, is not relevant to the truth value of the of the binary question of the existence of a deity. Said question cannot be answered within the constraints of logic and reason, therefore I will not concern myself with the question.

In other words, I have no lack of belief to speak of, nor do I believe in a deity. If you ask me if there is a god, I'll tell you that I don't know.

You do not believe in a deity, thus you lack belief in a deity. Therefore you are an agnostic atheist.

I do not lack belief, as belief is not relevant to the question of the existence of god. I do not have belief in a god, as believe is irrelevant once again. I believe there could be a god. I also believe there could not be a god. In other words, I believe, and I lack belief, in the possibility of a god simultaneously. It could be there is a god, and it could be that there isn't. I simply don't know the answer, and I believe it to be unknowable, so I don't consider the question.

An agnostic atheist would say "I don't believe in a god, but I can't be sure". I say "I simply don't know.". There is a difference.

My and my GF were having a conversation last night. She's very religous, Im not...at all. I asked her what proof do you have that god exists, since I'm not a believer. She told me that the church showed her some pictures last week and they said that the furthest image taken in space was some black hole with a cross in it... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...black_hole.jpg
I laughed

worst case scenario. (also from history channel)
Think the higher intelligence aliens as humans and we are ants. When you walk by an anthill, do you stop and try to communicate with it? NO!. Why, because it's a waste of your time because they are so much less intelligent and we gain nothing from communicating with them. So we leave them alone and build our super highways and sky scrapers around them. Only when they are in the way, do we crush their world, no ifs, no buts, no negotiations, no warning. So for all we know there are probably universe superhighways right next to earth and we just don't know its there because we are dumb and we are just lucky that earth is not in its way.

i think it would be a different scenario if we were to find ants on another planet. our scientists would analyze the hell out of it to find out how intelligent they are and how they got there.

anyway, if advanced alien species are anything like humans, they've probably destroyed themselves by now so we don't have to worry about them destroying us.

My and my GF were having a conversation last night. She's very religous, Im not...at all. I asked her what proof do you have that god exists, since I'm not a believer. She told me that the church showed her some pictures last week and they said that the furthest image taken in space was some black hole with a cross in it... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...black_hole.jpg
I laughed

loooooool. Oh lawd....I'd have to dump the bitch for being so stupid, that or just use her for sex.

i think it would be a different scenario if we were to find ants on another planet. our scientists would analyze the hell out of it to find out how intelligent they are and how they got there.

anyway, if advanced alien species are anything like humans, they've probably destroyed themselves by now so we don't have to worry about them destroying us.

no you didn't understand my scenario. We would study the ants from another planet because we never found any life on another planet. These Aliens have found life many times over on millions of planets and are no longer interested in level 0 intelligence planets.
Think the earth=universe. each anthill=a planet with life on it. human=the most intelligent creatures in the universe. sure some gets studied by scientist, but 99.9% of planet with life on it gets ignored because we are so ordinary...unless some rich ass Alien energy tycoon wants his own vacation planet, and he just happens to love Earth.